Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Neighborhoods And Intimate Partner Violence: A Decade In Review, Emily M. Wright, Gillian M. Pinchevsky, Min Xie
Neighborhoods And Intimate Partner Violence: A Decade In Review, Emily M. Wright, Gillian M. Pinchevsky, Min Xie
Criminology and Criminal Justice Faculty Publications
We consider the broad developments that have occurred over the past decade regarding our knowledge of how neighborhood context impacts intimate partner violence (IPV). Research has broadened the concept of “context” beyond structural features such as economic disadvantage, and extended into relationships among residents, collective “action” behaviors among residents, cultural and gender norms. Additionally, scholars have considered how the built environment might foster (or regulate) IPV. We now know more about the direct, indirect, and moderating ways that communities impact IPV. We encourage additional focus on the policy implications of the research findings.
Community-Informed Relationship Violence Intervention In A Highstress, Low-Income Urban Context, Tara N. Richards, Christopher M. Murphy, Lisa J. Nitsch, Angelique Green-Manning, Ann Marie Brokmeier, Adam D. Lamotte, Charvonne N. Holliday
Community-Informed Relationship Violence Intervention In A Highstress, Low-Income Urban Context, Tara N. Richards, Christopher M. Murphy, Lisa J. Nitsch, Angelique Green-Manning, Ann Marie Brokmeier, Adam D. Lamotte, Charvonne N. Holliday
Criminology and Criminal Justice Faculty Publications
To evaluate the effectiveness of the House of Ruth Maryland’s Gateway Project, a community-informed and oppression-sensitive relationship violence intervention program (RVIP; commonly labeled “batterer intervention”), designed for a predominantly low-income, racial minority population residing in a high-stress urban context. Method: Propensity score matching with data on 744 male program participants (89% Black; 59% unemployed; 76% on probation) was used to compare recidivism rates for those who did, and did not, complete the intervention program. The propensity score matching created comparison groups (n = 216 per group) with very similar distributions on 28 balancing factors. Results: During the year after program …